AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Three trustees of the Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust filed a legal action against Inderjit Kaur Puri. The case involved a post-judgment order related to a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the trial court at the request of the trustees, and for a protective order concerning the appellant's income tax returns.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellees: Argued in favor of the subpoena issued by the trial court, leading to the motion to quash by the appellant.
• Appellant: Contended that the order appealed from is immediately appealable as a collateral order unrelated to the merits of the case, which have been fully decided. The appellant argued that service was improper, and that her income tax returns are statutorily privileged from discovery, asserting that dismissal of the appeal would result in futile acts by the district court to enforce an unlawful order (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the order appealed from is immediately appealable as a collateral order unrelated to the merits of the case.
• Whether the appellant's income tax returns are statutorily privileged from discovery.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, concluded that the order is not a collateral order properly reviewable under Rule 12-503(E)(2)(c) NMRA because the order, at minimum, is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” The Court distinguished the present case from Breen v. State Taxation & Revenue Department, noting that unlike in Breen, the appellant is a party to the action and has recourse by way of refusing to comply with the subpoena and appealing from the contempt order. The Court was not persuaded by the appellant's arguments that dismissing the appeal and compelling her to be subjected to a contempt order to be able to seek review of an asserted unlawful order is inequitable and unjust, stating that such arguments are better directed at the Supreme Court, as the Court of Appeals is bound by Supreme Court precedent (paras 3-5).